Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

The Bible As A Closed System

Philosophy Forum
» Christianity
» The Bible As A Closed System

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

The bible as a closed system,well,the defination of an open system is a system which has an exchange with its environment.I do not think the bible has this mutual exchange for indeed the bible cannot change, being the word of god as many believe.I suspect there must be some indetectable mutual exchange between the Christian faith and the world at large,other wise it is difficult to understand how it remains in existence or even more startling, that it is in the forefront of political turmoil.What do you think,is the bible a closed system,if not what qualities does it share with an open system.Reality is about change but what of that which does not change or rather successfully resists all change.I shall elaborate a little more if need be,but doubt it will be necessary,I can see the dust on the horizon of a huge herd of Christians coming this way.

Yes,the devil made me do it!!:eek:

Sorry fellows,it just dawned upon me that this may need to be move,whatever you think best!:cool:

@boagie,

The Bible isn't a system, Boagie.
System (from Latin systēma, in turn from Greek σύστημα systēma) is a set of entities, real or abstract, comprising a whole where each component interacts with or is related to at least one other component and they all serve a common objective. Any object which has no relation with any other element of the system is not part of that system but rather of the system environment. A subsystem then is a set of elements, which is a system itself, and a part of the whole system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System
Every division or aggregation of real entities into systems is arbitrary, therefore it is a subjective abstract concept.
An entity is something that has a distinct, separate existence, though it need not be a material existence. In particular, abstractions and legal fictions are usually regarded as entities. In general, there is also no presumption that an entity is animate. Entities are used in system developments as models that display communications and internal processing of say documents compared to order processing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entities

The Bible cannot be regarded as an entity, it is the product of an entity. If you want to rephrase and re-target your intended victim, which I presume is Christendom, then you really should.

@Irishcop,

Hi Irishcop:)

Irish,I do not think there is anything which is not a system,so your protest needs more support:eek:

"What is religion? There are many definitions for the term "religion" in common usage. On this web site, we define it very broadly, in order to include the greatest number of belief systems: "Religion is any specific system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, and a philosophy of life." Thus we include here all of the great monotheistic religions, Eastern religions; Neopagan religions; a wide range of other faith groups, spiritual paths, and ethical systems; and beliefs about the existence of God(s) and Goddess(es). We recognize that most people define "religion" in a much more exclusive manner.":p

Are you saying the bible is the vehicle of said system and not part of it? A rock is a closed system,how unlike a rock is the bible and/or Christianity Irish.Actually another Christian on this site stated the Christianity is conditioned by its context, if that were true,that would indicate change both of environment/context and Christianity as a system,which would indicate if we could observe a changed state within it,an open system.Actually perhaps Christianity does change, I am recalling your statement about there being differences between the old and new testament,but these by some at least, are said to be two parts of the one system.

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Hi Irishcop

Irish,I do not think there is anything which is not a system,so your protest needs more support:eek:

"What is religion? There are many definitions for the term "religion" in common usage. On this web site, we define it very broadly, in order to include the greatest number of belief systems: "Religion is any specific system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, and a philosophy of life." Thus we include here all of the great monotheistic religions, Eastern religions; Neopagan religions; a wide range of other faith groups, spiritual paths, and ethical systems; and beliefs about the existence of God(s) and Goddess(es). We recognize that most people define "religion" in a much more exclusive manner."

Are you saying the bible is the vehicle of said system and not part of it? A rock is a closed system,how unlike a rock is the bible and/or Christianity Irish.Actually another Christian on this site stated the Christianity is conditioned by its context, if that were true,that would indicate change both of environment/context and Christianity as a system,which would indicate if we could observe a changed state within it,an open system.

"Religion is any specific system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, and a philosophy of life."
Thus, by your definition of religion, are you conceding that Science, is also a religion with some people (a "belief system", if you choose)? If you are not, would mind indulging me, and disqualify it by one of the above criteria you have set?

I contend the Bible, is an item of the system environment, not a system of itself. I have shown definitively that it, (and a rock) are not systems. They are simply disqualified by the absence of an entity. However, for the sake of argument, if a rock were a system, it definitely would not be a closed system, on the basis that an outside entity or system, could effect it. Newtonian Law, erosion, chemical reaction, thermal reaction effect the rock.
The Bible likewise could be effected, and has been effected by another system . It has been translated into most languages from its original texts. Those translators were not in the bible, were not original authors, nor were they necessarily even Christian or Hebrew.
The Bible and the rock are also disqualified as systems because it does not satisfy the requirement of having a set of entities. There is fundamentally only one Bible for the purpose of this discourse. There is no "s" at the end of "rock".
Had you included, all terrestrial elements comprising the Earth's system environment, then it would be correct to say the Earth is a system, but incorrect to say it is a closed system.
Had you included all the entities and systems mentioned in the Bible, and it's readers regardless of whether they were believers or not, and the churches, and the entities and systems effected by any of the aforementioned, you would have a Closed System, because that would include everything.

@Irishcop,

Irishcop,

Science is indeed a system,just not a religion,faith enters not in this speculative enterprize,the findings of science are always tentative until a better idea,a better model for what reality might look like is found.Why do the faithful always attempt to bounce themselves off science,why do we not try and stick to the topic. :mad:

"I contend the bible,is an item of the system environment,not a system of itself." All things are systems of the environment even to the extent of incompassing the entire universe.You say a rock could not be a system on the bases that an outside entity or system could effect it." The defination for a open system is that there is an exchange between the said system and its environment,the rock is effected by gravity but it does not contibution an exchange back into its the environment,a mutualism you might say.As far as the identity of the bible is concerned, I think it qualifies in all the following catagories.

That which is perceived or known or inferred to have its own distinct existence (living or nonliving)

types: abstract identity
physical identity
thing

The last known person to edit the bible was Francis Bacon.Christianitys' origins are a complex of influences from many past cultures,the one we know most about is the pagan contribution giving us the date of Christs birth and the hoilday known as Christmas from the pagan hoilday for there god at the time of the coming of the light.

You silver tongued devil you,you know only to well I would never say the world is a closed system,you know this from previous conversations."There is fundamentally only one bible".Perhaps, but there are many many holy texts of the same character.

So,Irish,what is this, I cannot say thing,that would mean identity.So the bible then for you is not to be found or fall into catagory whatsoever? How do you locate it Irish,it apparently has no characteristics to qualify it as a thing.

Lastly you seem to be asking that we do an indepth study of the bible and it systems,and your conclusion presently is what,that it is a totality in and of itself?:eek:

Honk if you love Jesus!!:p Sent your donations to,"Son's Of The Morning Light",a signed blank check made out to boagie!!

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Irishcop,

Science is indeed a system,just not a religion,faith enters not in this speculative enterprize,the findings of science are always tentative until a better idea,a better model for what reality might look like is found.Why do the faithful always attempt to bounce themselves off science,why do we not try and stick to the topic.

Here is your own definition:
"Religion is any specific system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, and a philosophy of life."
.... I see no reference to "faith", your words...not mine :cool:

Quote:

"I contend the bible,is an item of the system environment,not a system of itself." All things are systems of the environment even to the extent of incompassing the entire universe.You say a rock could not be a system on the bases that an outside entity or system could effect it." The defination for a open system is that there is an exchange between the said system and its environment,the rock is effected by gravity but it does not contibution an exchange back into its the environment,a mutualism you might say.As far as the identity of the bible is concerned, I think it qualifies in all the following catagories.

The rock has gravity, it pulls on the Earth too. The hill of rocks has the accumulation of gravity, the strata, the continent, the planet, the solar system, the galaxy, the local cluster, the universe..... all pull on each other, and then cumulatively. Logically, the string doesn't end until you reach totality, and totality must be a closed system*. Defer to Twain's analogy if you like.

Quote:

That which is perceived or known or inferred to have its own distinct existence (living or nonliving)

types: abstract identity
physical identity
thing

Then its a subjective value and only fit for poets and philosophers.

Quote:

The last known person to edit the bible was Francis Bacon.Christianitys' origins are a complex of influences from many past cultures,the one we know most about is the pagan contribution giving us the date of Christs birth and the hoilday known as Christmas from the pagan hoilday of for the coming of the light.

Again, I didnt say "edit", I said "translate", however you are incorrect with your facts. The Bible has been edited into a score of "modernized" or "standardized" versions and they are still being churned out, and in my opinion much inferior than the King James Version.

Quote:

You silver tongued devil,you know only to well I would never say the world is a closed system,you know this from previous conversations.There is fundamentally only on bible,perhaps but many many holy texts of the same character.

I do know that, and therefore I never said you thought the world was a closed system. Where did you come up with this notion that I did? I never attributed any of the following to you, when I said....
Had you included, all terrestrial elements comprising the Earth's system environment, then it would be correct to say the Earth is a system, but incorrect to say it is a closed system.

Quote:

So,Irish,what is this, I cannot say thing,that would mean identity.So the bible then for you is not to be found or fall into catagory whatsoever? How do you locate it Irish,it apparently has no characteristics to qualify it as a thing.

Again more words I never said. I plainly said the Bible is an item of the system environment, did you miss the bold italics?

Quote:

Lastly you seem to be asking that we do an indepth study of the bible and it systems,and your conclusion presently is what,that it is a totality in and of itself?:p

You missed my whole point. Here it is again ....

Had you included all the entities and systems mentioned in the Bible, and it's readers regardless of whether they were believers or not, and the churches, and the entities and systems effected by any of the aforementioned, you would have a Closed System, because that would include everything.

*Totality Boagie, that your god and your closed system from past conversations.

@Irishcop,

Irishcop wrote:

Here is your own definition:
"Religion is any specific system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, and a philosophy of life."
.... I see no reference to "faith", your words...not mine :cool:

Irishcop:)

Your getting petty on me Irish,because I failed to say faith is it somehow now in doubt for you?

The rock has gravity, it pulls on the Earth too. The hill of rocks has the accumulation of gravity, the strata, the continent, the planet, the solar system, the galaxy, the local cluster, the universe..... all pull on each other, and then cumulatively. Logically, the string doesn't end until you reach totality, and totality must be a closed system*. Defer to Twain's analogy if you like.

What has Twain's analogy got to do with this,even in a petty way? I am going by the defination given in general system theory about what is a closed system.I however do not have a lot of investment in Christianity's being a closed system but it is a system,and its function as near as I can descern is to create believers.

"Then its a subjective value and only fit for poets and philosophers."

No, it is a subjective value and only fit for those in possession of consciousness.

Again, I didnt say "edit", I said "translate", however you are incorrect with your facts. The Bible has been edited into a score of "modernized" or "standardized" versions and they are still being churned out, and in my opinion much inferior than the King James Version.

Editing/translating of the bible:Whatever,it really isn't of great importance to me.

We are agreed, the earth is an open system.

"Again more words I never said. I plainly said the Bible is an item of the system environment, did you miss the bold italics?"

Now that is a revealation,everything in the world is in a system of environment or EVERTHING IN THE WORLD IS IN THE WORLD----yes indeed I caught that one Irish!

With the totality you have invested in there would by no subject,so there would be nothing.Perhaps we could move on,I think it is established now that the bible,Christianity is a system.

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Irishcop wrote:
Here is your own definition:
"Religion is any specific system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, and a philosophy of life."
.... I see no reference to "faith", your words...not mine :cool:

Irishcop:)

Your getting petty on me Irish,because I failed to say faith is it somehow now in doubt for you?

The rock has gravity, it pulls on the Earth too. The hill of rocks has the accumulation of gravity, the strata, the continent, the planet, the solar system, the galaxy, the local cluster, the universe..... all pull on each other, and then cumulatively. Logically, the string doesn't end until you reach totality, and totality must be a closed system*. Defer to Twain's analogy if you like.

What has Twain's analogy got to do with this,even in a petty way? I am going by the defination given in general system theory about what is a closed system.I however do not have a lot of investment in Christianity's being a closed system but it is a system,and its function as near as I can descern is to create believers.

"Then its a subjective value and only fit for poets and philosophers."

No, it is a subjective value and only fit for those in possession of consciousness.

Again, I didnt say "edit", I said "translate", however you are incorrect with your facts. The Bible has been edited into a score of "modernized" or "standardized" versions and they are still being churned out, and in my opinion much inferior than the King James Version.

Editing/translating of the bible:Whatever,it really isn't of great importance to me.

We are agreed, the earth is an open system.

"Again more words I never said. I plainly said the Bible is an item of the system environment, did you miss the bold italics?"

Now that is a revealation,everything in the world is in a system of environment or EVERTHING IN THE WORLD IS IN THE WORLD----yes indeed I caught that one Irish!

With the totality you have invested in there would by no subject,so there would be nothing.Perhaps we could move on,I think it is established now that the bible,Christianity is a system.

Boagie, would it be too much to ask, if you would stay on your ADHD meds and focus on what is actually going on in the classroom?
You are either skipping your Ritalin Rx, or you banged your head and forgot your Ritalin, because you are jumping around unfocused and perceiving everything in this thread with an almost schizophrenic disconnect.

Quote:

Your getting petty on me Irish,because I failed to say faith is it somehow now in doubt for you?

Its not petty, its your own definition and I accepted it. However, if you can't disqualify Science as a religion in some people, using that definition, it speaks volumns about Science, as well as your ability to change your mind in the face of your own logic, does it not?

Quote:

The rock has gravity, it pulls on the Earth too. The hill of rocks has the accumulation of gravity, the strata, the continent, the planet, the solar system, the galaxy, the local cluster, the universe..... all pull on each other, and then cumulatively. Logically, the string doesn't end until you reach totality, and totality must be a closed system*. Defer to Twain's analogy if you like.

What has Twain's analogy got to do with this,even in a petty way? I am going by the defination given in general system theory about what is a closed system.I however do not have a lot of investment in Christianity's being a closed system but it is a system,and its function as near as I can descern is to create believers.

Come on Boagie, you are an intelligent man, I know you can get this, and also how it correlates to my God, or even your on Totality (Spinoza's?) god, and Twain's analogy.

[QUOTE]
That which is perceived or known or inferred to have its own distinct existence (living or nonliving)

"Then its a subjective value and only fit for poets and philosophers."

No, it is a subjective value and only fit for those in possession of consciousness.

[/COLOR]
Even if everyone perceiving it had the same consciousness, it would still be subjective, because it is intrinsically a perception value, not an absolute value.

We have definately not established the Bible is not a system, even after showing that fact in terms of your own logic.[/COLOR][/SIZE]

@Irishcop,

Irish,

I think civil discourse is over.

@boagie,

The bible must be an open system as it was written by men with limited knowledge. For it to have any lingering relevancy it must have been written so that it sets precedents and ideals that can be projected onto situations that were not fathomable when it was written.

Irishcop wrote:

The Bible cannot be regarded as an entity, it is the product of an entity. If you want to rephrase and re-target your intended victim, which I presume is Christendom, then you really should.

What do you propose actually is an entity? If we can distinguish what is not an entity, then we should be able to identify what is an entity.

Quote:

Thus, by your definition of religion, are you conceding that Science, is also a religion with some people (a "belief system", if you choose)? If you are not, would mind indulging me, and disqualify it by one of the above criteria you have set?

It does not qualify for any of these criteria: belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, and a philosophy of life. Namely, all of them.

Boagie does not wish to attack Christianity, but it seems quite obvious that you wish to attack science. It shows a general ignorance pertaining to science that you don't even realize that this is not even close to fair turnabout.

Quote:

I contend the Bible, is an item of the system environment, not a system of itself. I have shown definitively that it, (and a rock) are not systems. They are simply disqualified by the absence of an entity.

You have only shown that you do not understand the wikipedia articles that you posted.

An entity has a distinct existence in that it exists independently of anything else, it is not like a quality which is dependent on something else for its existence. A book is an entity because you can say "this is a book". When you refer to the bible as an item, you refer to it as an entity.

When we have a system, we simply have a collection of interacting entities, with entities being concepts, things, beliefs, whatever.

When something is an entity within the system environment but not a part of the system, it is something related in some way to the system but has no interaction with it.

The bible could never be considered an item outside of a system, because it would have to be completely unrelated to all other things. It can be considered an entity because it has a distinct existence, we can look at it and say here is a bible, by itself. It is also a system, as it is a collection of interacting words, stories, guidelines, predictions, and instructions.

A rock is a system of all of those atoms that constitute it.

Quote:

Had you included all the entities and systems mentioned in the Bible, and it's readers regardless of whether they were believers or not, and the churches, and the entities and systems effected by any of the aforementioned, you would have a Closed System, because that would include everything.

Does it include a recipe for a quiche?

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Irish,

I think civil discourse is over.

Boagie, we are even you just made me blow Diet Pepsi out my nose.

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

The bible must be an open system as it was written by men with limited knowledge. For it to have any lingering relevancy it must have been written so that it sets precedents and ideals that can be projected onto situations that were not fathomable when it was written.

I have stated that if the Bible is a system, it is an open system.

Quote:

What do you propose actually is an entity? If we can distinguish what is not an entity, then we should be able to identify what is an entity.

I already defined entity.. An entity is something that has a distinct, separate existence, though it need not be a material existence. In particular, abstractions and legal fictions are usually regarded as entities. In general, there is also no presumption that an entity is animate. Entities are used in system developments as models that display communications and internal processing of say documents compared to order processing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entities

Quote:

It does not qualify for any of these criteria: belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, and a philosophy of life. Namely, all of them.

Boagie does not wish to attack Christianity, but it seems quite obvious that you wish to attack science. It shows a general ignorance pertaining to science that you don't even realize that this is not even close to fair turnabout.

You know obviously nothing about me or my wishes, therefore you have no idea what you are talking about, which makes you the "generally ignorant" one here. If you did, you would know I'm willing to engage anyone on the issues, provided it doesn't turn into a pissing match. I am equally able to change my mind when logic is presented. I do not feel the need to win a point at the expense of my integrity. I also feel no great need to explain my view. or background in science again.
However, you just galloped in, jumped off your high horse, and started slinging its manure.

Quote:

You have only shown that you do not understand the wikipedia articles that you posted.

In your generally ignorant opinion.

Quote:

An entity has a distinct existence in that it exists independently of anything else, it is not like a quality which is dependent on something else for its existence. A book is an entity because you can say "this is a book". When you refer to the bible as an item, you refer to it as an entity.

When we have a system, we simply have a collection of interacting entities, with entities being concepts, things, beliefs, whatever.

When something is an entity within the system environment but not a part of the system, it is something related in some way to the system but has no interaction with it.

The bible could never be considered an item outside of a system, because it would have to be completely unrelated to all other things. It can be considered an entity because it has a distinct existence, we can look at it and say here is a bible, by itself. It is also a system, as it is a collection of interacting words, stories, guidelines, predictions, and instructions.

I agree, are you sure that doesnt make the Bible a sub-system?

Quote:

A rock is a system of all of those atoms that constitute it.

Touche', are you sure that doesnt make the rock a sub-system?

@Irishcop,

I am glad you agree with me.

I am sorry that I started slinging manure and got you all indignant.

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr Fight the Power,

Even if it comes down to the logical progression of order--organ--organism----organization how could one say Christianity is not an organization thus a system.I think for Christians to be willing to go to battle over anyone looking at their belief system indicates,at least for those most defensive that they believe it cannot stand the light of day.:eek:

Irishcop,

We will have to see how it goes,if it cannot be civil there is little point to dialogue.

"Dogmatic common sense is the death of philosophic adventure. The universe is vast." -A.N. Whitehead:cool:

@boagie,

Wow... You guys... going back and forth over this Bible thing.

Whether closed or open, as if it makes any difference, the Bible is a series of writings that have taken place over a vast period of time. Written and put together by man who probably argued what was going to be acceptable and what was not based on their own selfish beliefs and interpretations.

Something along the lines of this type of discussion have taken place many times over the course of many years and it's disagreements about things like this that have eventually brought nations to war.

In these discussions on Religion, Christians, Muslims, Bible etc., etcetera, let's understand that it is only what we make it so. In discussing the Bible as a closed or open system... does it really make any difference whether it is or it isn't? If it is, how will that change the way we think and act? If it isn't, how will it effect our thoughts and actions? Either way, does it make that much of a difference?

Yes, I realize that this is a discussion forum and these types of discussions are most certainly encouraged. Let's not however, discount the fact that we are all interconnected by one source and through that one source we coexist and co-create the world in which we live in. As far as the Bible, it's a book. Something that was physically put together of stories and scriptures that took place in history long ago. Something we can learn from and most importantly, to understand the life of Jesus Christ and the message of Jesus Christ and the significance of it.

Let's not forget how long ago that Bible was written and the level of consciousness of mankind during the period it was written. The Bible, in all it's wealth of information and the stories within it's bindings, is still a book. It's a physical creation of man written by man.

When man rises above the materialistic and physical stage and seeks out that spiritual truth that is described in the stories of Jesus, then he will rise up out of the ashes.

... Anyway, I just thought I'd ramble on a bit. Good discussion, just don't forget that we are all connected by one source and that source is not the physical Bible.

@Justin,

Justin,

The quality of ones actions toward the world,in the world, depends upon what he thinks and/or how well he thinks.Actually the study of general systems theory is a relatively new approach to science one revealing more than anyother displine,the wholistic approach,truth is to be found in the contemplation of wholes not through reductionism.Through this displine a great many things are being looked at again,Christianity being one of them.

For many people the bible determines their thinking and that has both positive and negative results for the world at large.If we understand its affects as well as its effects in interaction with human psychology we might better understand how to avoid the negative.:eek:

The Bible,Christianity in general is an open system, but it comes close to being closed system in that it considers itself the word of god thus not subject to any change relative to the worlds changeing conditions.Unlike the old oral traditions Christianity must be a defensive position that is in conflict with its own environment.At least, very uncomforatable with the modern world,its temperament is suited to the world two thousand years hence.Can Christianity learn,indeed does it learn,what does it taken in from its modern day environment,and what if anything does it do with that information,perhaps general systems theory can help us answer some of these questions.

@boagie,

Hi All!

So,it is now established that the bible and/or Christianity is a system of a sort,I am still not really sure that it is not a closed system,indeed that might be in part its attraction.In a world where everything is changeing at an incrediable rate,causeing enstrangement and alienation there is something which does not change-a sanctuary,a port in the storm.There is no doubt the bible has its effect upon the world but,does the world have an effect on the bible,does anything we have learned in the past two thousand years affect the bible whatsoever,if not, I think we must conclude it is a closed system.

What conclusions then can we drawn about closed systems in general.If anyone out there has a background or general knowledge about general systems theory by all means jump right in.Are there other institutions in our society that would be of a like nature?Are there examples of living or othewise viable closed systems?Well,I do not think closed system generally speaking could be said to be viable,but perhaps that is where Christianity does not fit the closed system model.

@boagie,

Autopoiesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Autopoietic) Smile

Jump to: navigation, search

Look up Autopoiesis in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Autopoiesis literally means "auto (self)-creation" (from the Greek: auto - αυτό for self- and poiesis - ποίησις for creation or production) and expresses a fundamental dialect between structure and function. The term was originally introduced by Chilean biologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela in 1973:
"An autopoietic machine is a machine organized (defined as a unity) as a network of processes of production (transformation and destruction) of components which: (i) through their interactions and transformations continuously regenerate and realize the network of processes (relations) that produced them; and (ii) constitute it (the machine) as a concrete unity in space in which they (the components) exist by specifying the topological domain of its realization as such a network." (Maturana, Varela, 1980, p. 78) The term autopoiesis was originally conceived as an attempt to characterize the nature of living systems. A canonical example of an autopoietic system is the biological cell. The eukaryotic cell, for example, is made of various biochemical components such as nucleic acids and proteins, and is organized into bounded structures such as the cell nucleus, various organelles, a cell membrane and cytoskeleton. These structures, based on an external flow of molecules and energy, produce the components which, in turn, continue to maintain the organized bounded structure that gives rise to these components. An autopoietic system is to be contrasted with an allopoietic system, such as a car factory, which uses raw materials (components) to generate a car (an organized structure) which is something other than itself (a factory).
More generally, the term autopoiesis refers to the dynamics of a non-equilibrium system; that is, organized states (sometimes also called dissipative structures) that remain stable for long periods of time despite matter and energy continually flowing through them. Actually, this flow is what maintains the organization of the open system.
From a very general point of view, the notion of autopoiesis is often associated with that of self-organization.
An application of the concept to sociology can be found in Luhmann's Systems Theory.
It has been suggested that some institutions emerge from arcane conversations to become autonomous, self-creating from their internal interactions, self-organising and self-defining of their own boundaries and thus autopoietic, acquiring a 'life of their own' and having as their main "purpose" their own self-perpetuation (Robb 1991).
Autopoiesis has been considered widely by Integral Theorist Ken Wilber.
Autopoietic principles are now being used in industrial manufacturing by IBM in its "Airgap" method of computer microchip production.

[edit] References:eek:

Capra, Fritjof (1997). The Web of Life. Random House. ISBN 0-385-47676-0 -general introduction to the ideas behind autopoiesis
Dyke, Charles (1988). The Evolutionary Dynamics of Complex Systems: A Study in Biosocial Complexity. New York: Oxford University Press.
Maturana, Humberto & Varela, Francisco ([1st edition 1973] 1980). Autopoiesis and Cognition: the Realization of the Living. Robert S. Cohen and Marx W. Wartofsky (Eds.), Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 42. Dordecht: D. Reidel Publishing Co. ISBN 90-277-1015-5 (hardback), ISBN 90-277-1016-3 (paper) -the main published reference on autopoiesis
Mingers, John (1994). Self-Producing Systems. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. ISBN 0-306-44797-5 -a book on the autopoiesis concept in many different areas
Luisi, Pier L. (2003). Autopoiesis: a review and a reappraisal. Naturwissenschaften 90 49-59. -biologist view of autopoiesis
Varela, Francisco J.; Maturana, Humberto R.; & Uribe, R. (1974). Autopoiesis: the organization of living systems, its characterization and a model. Biosystems 5 187-196. -one of the original papers on the concept of autopoiesis
Luhmann, Niklas (1990). Essays on Self-Reference. Columbia University Press. -Luhmann's adaptation of autopoiesis to social systems
Winograd, Terry and Fernando Flores (1990). Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design. Ablex Pub. Corp. -cognitive systems perspective on autopoiesis
Tabbi, Joseph (2002). Cognitive Fictions. University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 0-8166-3557-9 - draws on systems theory and cognitive science to introduce autopoiesis to literary studies
Livingston, Ira (2006). Between Science and Literature: An Introduction to Autopoetics. University of Illinois Press. -an adaptation of autpoiesis to language.
Robb, Fenton F. (1991) Accounting - A Virtual Autopoietic System? Systems Practice 4, (3) (215-235).:eek:

Systems theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Types of systems
Evidently, there are many types of systems that can be analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. For example, with an analysis of urban systems dynamics, Steiss (1967: 8-18) defines five intersecting systems, including the physical subsystem and behavioral system. For sociological models influenced by systems theory, where Bailey (1994) defines systems in terms of conceptual, concrete and abstract systems (either isolated, closed, or open), Buckley (1967) defines social systems in sociology in terms of mechanical, organic, and process models. Banathy (1997) cautions that with any inquiry into a system that understanding the type of system is crucial and defines Natural and Designed systems. In offering these more global definitions, the author maintains that it is important not to confuse one for the other. The theorist explains that natural systems include sub-atomic systems, living systems, the solar system, the galactic system and the Universe. Designed systems are our creations, our physical structures, hybrid systems which include natural and designed systems, and our conceptual knowledge. The human element of organization and activities are emphazized with their relevant abstract systems and representations. A key consideration in making distinctions among various types of systems is to determine how much freedom the system has to select purpose, goals, methods, tools, etc. and how widely is the freedom to select distributed (or concentrated) in the system.
Klin (1969: 69-72) maintains that no "classification is complete and perfect for all purposes," and defines systems in terms of abstract, real, and conceptual physical systems, bounded and unbounded systems, discrete to continuous, pulse to hybrid systems, et cetera. The interaction between systems and their environments are categorized in terms of absolutely closed systems, relatively closed, and open systems. The case of an absolutely closed system is a rare, special case. Important distinctions have also been made between hard and soft systems (Checkland 1999; Flood 1997). Hard systems are associated with areas such as systems engineering, operations research and quantitative systems analysis. Soft systems are commonly associated with concepts developed by Checkland through Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) involving methods such as action research and emphasizing participatory designs. Where hard systems might be identified as more "scientific," the distinction between them is actually often hard to define.
See also: Soft systems, Hard systems, hybrid system, unbounded system

Perhaps a discussion on systems is not timely,I am not well versed in it myself.It is a relatively new development to the investigation of our reality/science and one which should,at least be introduced.Anyone having a grounding in this is invited to take the lead here or at least contribute too it's further understanding. Smile

@boagie,

If the bible were an open system, wouldn't it be open to interpretation?
The commandments were written in stone, not papyrus.
There doesn't seem to be much in the way of negotiations with a force who has already flooded the Earth, rained fire on cities, created the plagues of Egypt, and declared Armageddon on the planet.

I think that people who try to negotiate, or otherwise alter the wording of the bible...are trying to justify their own needs over what has been set out for them by the teachings of the bible.
If I tell my son that he will lose dessert if he misbehaves at the table, and then he cries when the punishment is due to be paid; too bad, he knew the consequences, and no amount of negotiation or justification is going to change my mind. If he tries to tell me that what I said has loopholes, then he's going to be sorely disappointed when he gets punished on top of it all for disrespecting me.

@Aristoddler,

Aristoddler wrote:

If the bible were an open system, wouldn't it be open to interpretation?
The commandments were written in stone, not papyrus.
There doesn't seem to be much in the way of negotiations with a force who has already flooded the Earth, rained fire on cities, created the plagues of Egypt, and declared Armageddon on the planet.

I think that people who try to negotiate, or otherwise alter the wording of the bible...are trying to justify their own needs over what has been set out for them by the teachings of the bible.
If I tell my son that he will lose dessert if he misbehaves at the table, and then he cries when the punishment is due to be paid; too bad, he knew the consequences, and no amount of negotiation or justification is going to change my mind. If he tries to tell me that what I said has loopholes, then he's going to be sorely disappointed when he gets punished on top of it all for disrespecting me.

:eek:

Aristoddler, Smile

I guess you had best not disrespect your big daddy then,least you find a lighting bolt up that dark channel.What indeed is wrong with having a look a what type of a system the bible,the church might fall under.Of course I do realize with a lot of Christians any new idea is a potential threat.Light,light is such a marvelous thing,making sight possiable.

PS: This does not have to be confrontational,if you cannot address the topic, simply do not adress the thread at all.It has been established that the bible,and Christianity are systems, if you would like to discuss what kind of system/s these are,and your reasons for believeing so,then we have a start.

"If the bible were an open system, wouldn't it be open to interpretation?"

It is open to interpretation,literal interpretation, metaphorical, historical and systematic interpretation,actually some of all the above.It is a system with many facets,perhaps systems within a larger system?

For future reference I have no wish to argue about the merits of the bible one way or another.The thread is simply about what kind of a system is said bible,what kind of a system is the institution of Christianity.Anyone feeling themselves to emotional about the topic,is encouraged to forgo taking part.:eek:

Philosophy Forum
» Christianity
» The Bible As A Closed System

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

The Bible As A Closed System

Quick Links

My Account

able2know